Since at least as early as 2012, Simple Finance has provided online banking and

other related financial services throughout the United States under its mark SIMPLE. Through
its sophisticated technological solutions and high quality consumer experience, Simple Finance
has built a loyal customer base, earned significant third-party media acclaim, and developed
substantial goodwill in the SIMPLE brand. Many years after the founding of Simple Finance,
defendant Simple RTO adopted the name Simple Finance and began to offer financial services,
including financing, credit and loan services under the marks SIMPLE and SIMPLE FINANCE
in 45 states, with a focus on the Pacific Northwest, including Oregon. Defendant’s use of these
marks has already resulted in actual consumer confusion, is highly likely to lead to additional
consumer confusion, and will cause irreparable harm to Simple Finance’s business, reputation,
and goodwill if not enjoined.
II.
3.

PARTIES

Simple Finance is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Portland, Oregon.
4.

Simple RTO d/b/a Simple Finance is a Utah limited liability corporation with its

principal place of business in Midvale, Utah. Simple RTO is registered to do business in
Oregon.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

This Court has jurisdiction over Simple Finance’s related state and common-law claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 1367.
6.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Simple RTO because Simple RTO is

registered to do business in Oregon and in fact does business with merchants and customers in
Oregon, including at least with Furniture & Beds of Oregon, Inc., an Oregon corporation with its
principal place of business in Albany, Oregon in this District, which in turn targets Oregon
consumers with Defendant’s infringing marks.
7.

This District is a proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) Defendant does

business in this District, Simple Finance is being harmed in this District, and a substantial part of
the events giving rise to the claim occurred here.
IV.
A.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Simple Finance, its Business and its SIMPLE Mark
8.

In 2009, Josh Reich and Shamir Karkal teamed up to build a consumer friendly,

retail bank with a focus on using technology to make banking simple and easy to understand. At
least as early as 2012, the company adopted and started using the mark SIMPLE for its financial
services offerings throughout the United States.
9.

Simple Finance offers more than just financial services under the SIMPLE

brand—it provides an all-inclusive finance product. Bank customers download the SIMPLE app,
which provides many tools to manage the customer’s money, including interactive tracking of a
customer’s finances and the use of cutting edge design and behavioral economics to encourage
customers to save more and spend responsibly. Simple Finance stands out from traditional banks
and financial service providers as a consumer-friendly, no-fee, no hassle option. It provides
these offerings using the SIMPLE mark.

Simple Finance markets the SIMPLE mark extensively through social media and

through its acclaimed website and blog. This has been successful. Simple Finance has over
100,000 followers on various social media services. It has also received a large amount of
positive press from various print and online media outlets, including the following (attached as
Exhibits 1 through 5 hereto):

11.

•

Jenna Wortham, A Financial Service for People Fed Up With Banks, New
York Times (Jan. 8, 2013),
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/technology/a-financial-service-forpeople-fed-up-with-banks.html?_r=0;

Samantha Sharf, Simple CEO On How A Bank Can Be a Brand You Love,
Forbes (Sept. 4, 2014),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/09/04/under-30-summitsimple-ceo-on-how-a-bank-can-be-a-brand-you-love/#310ff7cc7333.

Simple Finance’s considerable efforts have resulted in its SIMPLE brand

becoming ubiquitous in the world of online banking. A Google search for the word “simple”
returns Simple Finance’s website as the first result. Similarly, the SIMPLE app is the first result
on a search for “Simple” on the Android and iOS App Store. In fact, the SIMPLE app has been
downloaded over 200,000 times across both app stores and holds better than a four-and-a-half
star rating on both platforms.
12.

Simple Finance filed an application with the USPTO for the SIMPLE mark for

use in connection with banking and financing services on or about June 30, 2011 (Serial
No. 85360756). That application was published for opposition on October 6, 2015, and no

Simple RTO has refused to cease using Simple Finance’s SIMPLE mark, has

knowingly, willfully, and intentionally copied Simple Finance’s SIMPLE mark and has
attempted to position its financial service offerings so as to take advantage of the goodwill
acquired in the SIMPLE mark by Simple Finance.
20.

Defendant’s use of the SIMPLE and SIMPLE FINANCE marks has produced,

and inevitably will continue to produce, consumer confusion with Simple Finance and its
SIMPLE mark.
21.

Simple Finance has been damaged and will suffer a diminished and tarnished

reputation of its hard-earned and carefully-cultivated SIMPLE brand and reputation if Defendant
is not enjoined.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Federal Trademark Infringement of Mark)
22.

Simple Finance incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.
23.

Simple Finance owns protectable trademark rights in the mark SIMPLE for use in

connection with online banking, financing, and related offerings. These rights are valid and
enforceable, and are superior to any rights in any mark that incorporates the term “simple” that
Defendant might own.
24.

Defendant’s use in commerce of the SIMPLE FINANCE and SIMPLE marks for

financial and web-based lending services has caused and is likely to continue to cause confusion
with Simple Finance’s SIMPLE mark for online banking and web-based financial services, and
infringes on Simple Finance’s rights in the SIMPLE mark.
25.

Defendant knew or had reason to know of Simple Finance’s ownership and use of

the SIMPLE mark and that their use of the SIMPLE and SIMPLE FINANCE marks in
connection with their services would infringe on Simple Finance’s SIMPLE mark in violation of
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
7-

Simple Finance incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.
29.

Defendant’s use of the SIMPLE and SIMPLE FINANCE marks are false

designations of origin, likely to cause and having caused confusion or mistake, and are likely to
deceive or have deceived as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant with
Simple Finance and of Simple Finance with Defendant.
30.

As a result of the unfair competition described above, Simple Finance is entitled

to injunctive relief against Defendant and to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a), 1116, and 1117.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition)
32.

Simple Finance incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as though

fully set forth herein.
33.

Defendant’s actions as described herein constitute common law trademark

infringement and unfair competition in violation of the common law of the State of Oregon, and
have caused and is likely to continue to cause confusion among consumers, in addition to injury
to Simple Finance’s reputation and goodwill associated with the SIMPLE mark.

will continue to cause irreparable harm and a likelihood of confusion among ordinary consumers,
in addition to injury to Simple Finance’s valuable reputation and the goodwill associated with the
SIMPLE mark.
40.

As a result of the dilution and injury to business reputation described above,

or under authority from Defendant, or in concert or participation with Defendant, and each of
them, be enjoined from:
a. using the SIMPLE mark or any other copy, reproduction,
colorable imitation, simulation of the SIMPLE mark, or a
confusing similar mark, in association with their goods or
services;
b. using any trademark, service mark, name, logo, design or source
designation of any kind or in connection with their goods or
services that is a copy, reproduction, colorable imitation, or
simulation of the trademarks, service marks, names or logos of
Simple Finance;
c. using any trademark, service mark, name, domain name, logo,
design or source designation of any kind on or in connection with
Defendant’s goods or services which is likely to cause confusion,
mistake, deception or public misunderstanding that such goods or
services are produced or provided in association or in any way
connected to Simple Finance; and
d. using any trademark, service mark, name, domain name, logo,
design, or source designation of any kind on or in connection with
Defendant’s goods or services that dilutes, tarnishes, or is likely to
dilute or tarnish the distinctiveness of the trademarks, service
marks, names or logos of Simple Finance.
2.

An award to Simple Finance of its costs (including expert fees), disbursements,

and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117,
ORS 647.105, and the equity powers of this court.